Content deleted Content added
m The Sipser's applies to any Lambda Calculus? |
→The Sipser's applies to any Lambda Calculus?: good question; Godel actually believed machines were best |
||
Line 201:
-- Krauss nov. 2006
:Good question. I suspect Sipser would say that the model must be a machine. (I suppose we could ask him!) There is a quote from Godel -- I have looked for it recently but didn't find it, but I know I've read it a couple places ... He was not convinced that the recursive functions (mu-recursive, partial or total) completely defined all functions that are calculable/definable. Late in life he believed that only the Turing machine and equivalents were the final definition. I don't remember anything about lambda-calculus but it is close enough to mu-recursion (I believe) so it would not meet Godel's question. If you assume the Church-Turing thesis then I suppose you have to say that any specification such as mu-recursion/lambda calculus/Turing machine is adequate. My guess is people don't use the first two because they are harder to use. I am far away from my books, so I can't research this more.wvbailey[[User:Wvbailey|Wvbailey]] 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
| |||